TA9-09999

TA9-09999

The claimant failed to rebut the strong presumption of adequate state protection in the Czech Republic with clear and convincing evidence and did not take reasonable steps to seek protection; documentary evidence shows state protection is generally available; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA9-09999
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision (refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Burden of Proof, Ethnic Persecution, Roma, Police Conduct, Hate Crime
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Burden of Proof Ethnic Persecution Roma +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision (refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in the Czech Republic is adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the strong presumption of adequate state protection in the Czech Republic with clear and convincing evidence and did not take reasonable steps to seek protection; documentary evidence shows state protection is generally available; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims under section 96 and section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.